It is not necessary for the presence of each and every member of conspirators in execution of offence is essential to accomplish conspiracy

(Crl.A.Nos.121, 168, 375, 379, 391, 395, 945 of 2003 are filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. and Crl.A.No.1239 of 2004 is filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. all against the judgment dated 6.1.2003 made in Sessions Case No.149 of 1996 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Coimbatore)

M. Thanikachalam, J.

A.7; A.1; A9 to A.11; A.8, A.2; A.5, A.6 and A.4, who stand convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the judgment of the trial Court dated 6.1.2003, in Sessions Case No.149 of 1996, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Coimbatore, are the appellants in Crl.A.Nos.121,168,375, 379, 391, 395 and 94 5 of 2003 respectively.

2. The State, aggrieved by the acquittal of A.3 in the above Sessions Case, has filed Criminal Appeal No.1239 of 2004.

3. The prosecution brought the accused, to face the trial, before the trial Court for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302 r/w.109, 302, 302 r/w.34 IPC alleging that A.1/appellant in Crl.A.No.168 of 2003 had love affair with one Sunitha-P.W.3; that Sunitha not only refused to accede to the request of A.1, but preferred her classmate, by name Vivi @ Vivek @ Vivekanandan and also married him on 13.12.1991; that thereafter, A.1, had love affair with one Sherry, who was the Engineering College Student of an Institution owned by the family of A.1; that though A.1 married the said Sherry, later she was given in marriage to one Thomas by her parents and hence she left the country along with her husband, which upset A.1; that thereafter, in order to fulfil his earlier desire of marrying P.W.3-Sunitha, which has not vanished, A.1 hatched a conspiracy along with some of the accused to commit the murder of the husband of Sunitha viz. Vivek; that the persons, so engaged, had contacted A.7/the appellant in Crl.A.No.121 of 2003; that he had engaged A.8 to A.11 for the purpose of committing the murder of Vivek; that A.9 to A.11/appellants in Crl.A.No.375 of 2003 have executed the plan, viz. committing the murder of Vivek on 17.8.1993 at about 10.15 a.m. at Coimbatore, R.S. Puram, Diwan Bahadur Road near ‘Richy-Rich’ Restaurant, in order to facilitate A.1 to marry Sunitha; thereby all of them are liable to be dealt with under Sections 120-B, 302, 302 r/w.34 and 302 r/w.109 IPC.

4. Upon committal, when the accused were produced/appeared before the Sessions Court, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, by going through the materials, satisfied himself, that the materials placed before him are prima facie sufficient to frame charges, to proceed further, and in this view, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, framed the following charges, as per the order dated 5.8.19 98: Against A.1 to A.11: under Section 120-B IPC, against A.10: under Section 302 IPC, against A.9 and A.11 : under Section 302 r/w.34 IPC and against A.1 to A.8 : under Section 302 r/w.109 IPC.

5. All the accused, when questioned about the charges, explaining to them also, have refused to plead guilty, disputing the facts or the averments, alleged against them.

6. Thereafter, when the case came before the Additional Sessions Judge viz. Fast Tract Court No.1, Coimbatore, the learned Judge, by going through the materials, felt that the charges framed against A.9 to A.11 viz. original charges No.2 and 3, are not proper, reflecting the case of the prosecution. Therefore, he amended or recast the charges No.2 and 3, framing a charge under Section 302 against A.9 and a charge under Section 302 r/w.34 IPC against A.10 and A.11, as per the order dated 19.4.2002.

7. The accused, when questioned, refused to plead guilty for the amended charges also, thereby compelling the prosecution to make out a case, as projected and as reflected in the charges.

8. At the first instance, in order to prove the charges, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 56 have been examined, seeking aid from Exs.P.1 to P.116 and M.Os.1 to 38. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accu